In the latest Point of Inquiry podcast episode, regular host Chris Mooney, the science journalist, is interviewed by Ronald A. Lindsey, a bioethicist, lawyer and CEO of POI’s parent organization Center for Inquiry.
Chris is his usual well-balanced self, but Lindsey, whether he’s just being a devil’s advocate or, as seems more likely, actually believe in strong neo-atheism, displays a rather… disconcerting attitude. He reminds me of a friend’s observation that some Mensans have a hard time accepting that the average person is less rational than them (which itself is a flaw on their rationality — insisting that everyone else sees thing the way one does, rather than more dispassionately trying to understand belief formation) — first by assuming that any non-confrontational dialogue between religion and science is a subtle attack on science itself (and assuming that organizations such as the Templeton Foundation are immutable and thus their past flaws are proof of a continuing sinister intent), then by, incredulously, asking if, indeed, getting religious believers to accept scientific findings has to involve an appeal to emotion as well as to reason, whether atheist scientists should not *shame* religious people into abandoning their beliefs!
With the display of hubris, lack of empathy, and misunderstanding of basic psychology on offer, neo-atheists like Lindsey (and Richard Dawkins) are really doing themselves and science a disservice — perpetuating a distrust between atheists and religious people, and making it harder to engage and change the mind of people on important, time-critical issue such as climate change. Because to them, irrationally, nothing is as important as first wiping off religious belief from existence. Which begs the question — why the irrational hatred?
Michel,
If the concern that folks promoting science and reason-based approaches are undercutting their message by using shame-based approaches as you have described them, keep in mind that there is an extensive body of applied research in persuasion methods. You can even get a college degree in the applied research in persuasion methods … it’s called “marketing.”
I’m not sure that the so-called new atheists are consciously using a shame-based marketing approach here. They may simply be persistent and passionate in asking hard questions (and there’s nothing wrong with that in our marketplace of ideas).
However, we do know from marketing experience that shame-based approaches can be very effective in some instances.
We also know the so-called “confrontational” approach is very effective marketing for some persons:
http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts
Take care,
Steve
Steve,
I think the ones amenable to a “confrontational” approach are likely the ones already harboring some doubt — the same argument can be made for more outreach by liberal denominations: many people probably remain affiliated with theologically conservative groups because they are not aware of alternatives, not because that’s their natural predisposition! (which saddens me that, at least within Christianity, the choice outside the Western world is mostly between conservative Catholicism and conservative Evangelicals). The “road to Damascus”-style conversions, I have a feeling, are mostly limited to those whose previously strident position, like that of Saul of Tarsus and the Marine dad from American Beauty, are masking their own insecurities.
What concerns me is that, if Mooney is right, many right-wing Evangelicals are being entrenched in their anti-evolution, anti-climate-change perspective because neo-atheists *and* their own pastors both promote a false dichotomy between rationalism on one side and right-wing Christianity on the other.
As for marketing — well, while dieting is a huge marketing success, the average waistline continues to bulge, so I’m not sure shaming people into not eating works (though it probably makes some of those who are in good shape feel good about themselves).
Thanks for the pointer to Dawkins’ converts page — and your own blog. I’ll try and catch up with your posts.
Michel, I recently attended the Bioethics Forum here in Madison, WI, at which an international gathering of neuroscientists, a theoretical physicist, a molecular biologist, anthropologists and an ethnobotanist gave presentations on their research into the origins of consciousness. I was struck by their humility and open-mindedness on the subject of “other ways of knowing,” and their ready admission that the scientific method as it currently exists may never be able to explain consciousness — and even that consciousness may exist outside the individual mind. One Swiss neuroscientist suggested that consciousness may be “another dimension of the universe.” Four neuroscientists and the theoretical physicist said their research has led them to believe that some kind of life after death is possible; the molecular physicist said he had been convinced to believe it’s not only possible but actual. All these presentations are available online; let me know if you’d like the URL.
Dear Susan,
Certainly, that’d be very interesting. I personally understand the need by many scientists to not belief in what cannot be proven — some people separate their private beliefs from their work, some people don’t. What rather concerns me is when hard neo-atheists on one side, and “fundgelicals” on the other hand (got the term from Rev. Elizabeth Keaton) conspire to both reduce our experience of awe and wonder, whether natural or mystical. There are some amazing agnostic/atheist scientists out there with a nature-based spiritual wonder at the workings of the universe, but not everyone is so inclined (you’d need the benefit of a decent science education first, which, as demonstrated by the persistence of Young Earth Creationism, sadly is not the case in the US)